Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to give Mr X extra bin capacity. The law prevents us investigating the Council’s policy. The evidence suggests the Council properly reached its decision in Mr X’s case. It would be disproportionate to consider the Council’s communications and complaint-handling in isolation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council refused his application for extra bin capacity for non-recyclable waste. He also complains about the Council’s related communications and complaint-handling. Mr X says this has caused inconvenience as he cannot fit all his household’s waste in the bin and he experienced frustration and time and trouble pursuing the matter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. We cannot investigate something that affects all or most of the people in a council’s area. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(7), as amended)
3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Refusal to give Mr X extra bin capacity for non-recyclable waste

7. The Council’s refuse collection arrangements affect most residents of its area. So the restriction in paragraph 2 prevents us investigating the Council’s policy and general arrangements for fortnightly waste collection, including the size of bins it provides. This means we cannot consider whether the 180-litre bins the Council gives most households are too small for their purpose.
8. The Council’s policy allows it to consider applications from residents for a larger or extra bin for non-recyclable waste. I have therefore considered the Council’s refusal of Mr X’s individual application.
9. The Council’s policy gives it discretion to provide extra non-recyclable waste capacity to a household if the Council is satisfied that the household is recycling everything it can and that the household produces high levels of non-recyclable waste. It is for the Council to decide what constitutes a ‘high level’ compared with what it would generally expect from a household. The Council’s website gives examples, such as nappies or incontinence waste.
10. Mr X applied for extra bin capacity. The Council’s application form asked about any babies or pets in the household and any medical condition (some medical conditions can cause extra waste). Mr X’s responses said none of those applied to his household. He said the bin was inadequate for fortnightly collection from his household of four people. The Council states a household of four people is not unusual and it expects such a household can use the standard bin for non-recyclable waste. The Council decided Mr X’s circumstances did not show it would expect higher levels of household waste to justify extra bin capacity.
11. I am satisfied the Council considered Mr X’s application. Its decision was in line with the information it had and with its policy. So, as paragraph 4 explained, I cannot criticise the decision, though Mr X can disagree with the decision.
12. Mr X said the Council’s response did not explain the decision properly. However, this point is not in itself significant enough for me to devote time and public money to considering it as I cannot criticise the decision itself.

The Council’s complaint-handling and communications with Mr X

13. The Council’s final response to Mr X said it had ‘upheld’ his complaint. However, the letter’s content implied the Council did not think it was at fault and the Council had not offered Mr X any remedy as we might expect when a complaint is upheld. The Council told me its response should have said the complaint was ‘not upheld’ but mistakenly stated the opposite. It says it will cover this subject in complaint-handling training it has arranged for staff.
14. The Council caused confusion here. However, it is now clear the Council did not uphold the complaint. That is in line with the substantive content of the Council’s responses. The Council is taking sufficient action to try to prevent a recurrence of this error. In the circumstances, it would be disproportionate for us to pursue this point further.
15. Mr X is also dissatisfied with other aspects of the Council’s complaint-handling. It would be disproportionate to investigate that when we are not investigating the substantive matter (that is, the refusal to provide extra bin capacity).

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. The law prevents us investigating the Council’s policy generally. The evidence suggests the Council properly reached its decision in Mr X’s case. It would be disproportionate to consider the Council’s communications and complaint-handling in isolation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman